83,240
edits
Re Spectrum Plus: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{cn}}{{Cite1|Re Spectrum Plus|2005|UKHL|41}} ''[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd050630/nat-1.htm click here for transcript]'' is an important case about [[fixed charge]]s. | {{cn}}{{Cite1|Re Spectrum Plus|2005|UKHL|41}} ''[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd050630/nat-1.htm click here for transcript]'' is an important case about [[fixed charge]]s and the [[doctrine odf precedent]], that [[Golden thread|golden stream]] of precedent that warmly nourishes the [[common law]]. Did I say stream? I MEANT THREAD. | ||
===In a {{nutshell}}=== | ===In a {{nutshell}}=== | ||
Yes, you can take a {{tag|fixed charge}} over [[book debts]], but if you want to it to be enforceable, you must have practical control of the item, and a legal right to stop the [[chargor]] walking off with it. | *Yes, you can take a {{tag|fixed charge}} over [[book debts]], but if you want to it to be enforceable, you must have practical control of the item, and a legal right to stop the [[chargor]] walking off with it. | ||
*Yes, newly decided cases which overturn old ones do apply retrospectively. By the jurisprudence of the law, the old one was always wrong, even when the law said it was right. So if you organised your affairs in reliance on the law that later turns out not to have been the law, well that’s tough. But you therefore can’t rely on ''this'' statement of the law either. O! {{t|Paradox}}! | |||
===Issues=== | ===Issues=== | ||
*'''[[Stare decisis]]''': Does a newly decided strand of common law apply to contracts pre-dating its development, which were concluded on the assumption of contrary rules? | *'''[[Stare decisis]]''': Does a newly decided strand of common law apply to contracts pre-dating its development, which were concluded on the assumption of contrary rules? | ||